This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

Ok, so according to you the chances the government will pursue the charge if the victim was white is no less or more than if the victim was black. Do you have any evidence to support that?

LMAO not what i said, i said your question didnt matter to the law and crime
if you think the government will be bias thats you job to prove it not mine because i didnt make the claim nor care about it since it doesn't matter to facts, laws and crime.

good luck!

Originally Posted by RamFel

Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Hicup

homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.

Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

Originally Posted by AGENT J

and that is 100% factually false based on legality.
Its an OPINION you are allowed to have but we are talkign facts and laws so your opinion is meaningless.
LEGALLY what could the christian community do? could they press charges based on them being chrisitian? nope

they are factually not the victiums

anyway moing on from your mistake

its fact its a hate crime
its a fact the owner is a victium

your false and proven wrong claim is there can only be a hate crime if there is a biased towards the victim's identity

well what if the owner was mark zuckerberg? an atheist

or better yet a corporation, say facebook owned it and the property, an atheist corporation.

well the IDENTITY of the victim is atheist and therefore the crime would not be against the victim's identity but it would still be a hate crime by definition.
Like i said facts, laws and the crims definition all prove you wrong and you have nothign on your side besides "nu-huh", this fact wont change

you're welcome
facts win again

The whole purpose of hate crime legislation is to prevent the prejudice attacks to victimize a whole community based on certain categories such as race or religion.

If the assailant burned down a church because he was a psychotic arsonist who enjoyed burning down churches then it wouldn't be a hate crime

If the assailant did it to spark fear in the minds of the Christians belonging to the church he effectively victimizes the entire Christian community. This is the entire reason for hate crime legislation.

However, your suggestion was that it wasn't based on the motivation of a bias towards the victim, even if the "legal" victim is the property owner who happens to be an atheist the argument could still suggest that considering he owned a Christian church he identifies as a entrepreneur of the Christian faith, regardless of his own beliefs. That identity is still being targeted by the actual case of this hypothetical situation.

Case point, I am a white guy who supports n.a.a.c.p and am targeted for such, with a crime of intimidation. It's because I identify as a supporter of the n.a.a.c.p that I'm targeted on the basis of the assailants bias towards my identity politically in regards towards my support for the n.a.a.c.p hate crime legislation is in regards to the attempt to prevent e emotional stress or fear given to the community of let's say white people who support n.a.a.c.p, or what you say Christians belonging to the church

Your hypothetical question really holds no water, the owner of the church would still be victimized based on his identity of a church holder, motivated by the bias of the assailant. You have no clue what your talking about and your reaching for something that you can't prove.

Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

This is why we should have hate crime legislation, the definitions are far too floppy.

We shouldn't have hate crime legislation because it opens the door to more intense thought crimes, at least my reasoning for not having the laws.

I'm not arguing that the intention of the legislation is for good reasons, however it turns violent crime into violent crime based on thought creating a grey area, or opening to door towards more efficient thought crimes in destroying political opposition for the a users of government.

Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

The whole purpose of hate crime legislation is to prevent the prejudice attacks to victimize a whole community based on certain categories such as race or religion.

If the assailant burned down a church because he was a psychotic arsonist who enjoyed burning down churches then it wouldn't be a hate crime

If the assailant did it to spark fear in the minds of the Christians belonging to the church he effectively victimizes the entire Christian community. This is the entire reason for hate crime legislation.

However, your suggestion was that it wasn't based on the motivation of a bias towards the victim, even if the "legal" victim is the property owner who happens to be an atheist the argument could still suggest that considering he owned a Christian church he identifies as a entrepreneur of the Christian faith, regardless of his own beliefs. That identity is still being targeted by the actual case of this hypothetical situation.

Case point, I am a white guy who supports n.a.a.c.p and am targeted for such, with a crime of intimidation. It's because I identify as a supporter of the n.a.a.c.p that I'm targeted on the basis of the assailants bias towards my identity politically in regards towards my support for the n.a.a.c.p hate crime legislation is in regards to the attempt to prevent e emotional stress or fear given to the community of let's say white people who support n.a.a.c.p, or what you say Christians belonging to the church

Your hypothetical question really holds no water, the owner of the church would still be victimized based on his identity of a church holder, motivated by the bias of the assailant. You have no clue what your talking about and your reaching for something that you can't prove.

your statement was factually wrong and the answer is still factually yes . . .theres no amount of your opinions that will change that fact.

thats a nice long post that changes ZERO facts, laws and how the crimes is defined lol its meaningless. Like i said law, facts and the definition of the crime all prove you wrong. Theres nothing on your side but your feelings and opinions. keep trying though its ha;larious watching you argue against facts and definitions.

your post fails and facts win again

Originally Posted by RamFel

Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Hicup

homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.

Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

Originally Posted by AGENT J

your statement was factually wrong and the answer is still factually yes . . .theres no amount of your opinions that will change that fact.

thats a nice long post that changes ZERO facts, laws and how the crimes is defined lol its meaningless. Like i said law, facts and the definition of the crime all prove you wrong. Theres nothing on your side but your feelings and opinions. keep trying though its ha;larious watching you argue against facts and definitions.

your post fails and facts win again

Tell me how in your hypothetical case of mark zuckerberg owning a church that was burned down for the purpose of hating Christians isn't victimizing him for his identity of being an entrepreneur of Christianity by owning churches based on the bias of being anti Christian.